I'm currently beginning my search for a new computer.
Constraints/Requirements:
1/ I'd like to spend max 1000€ in it (i spent 1300€ 5 years ago for my current laptop, and i think that 1000€ should be enough today to have some decent quality?)
2/ I don't care between PC or laptop
3/ the computer is aimed at a) playing video games (especially quakelive) b) multimedia stuff (music, movies, internet, etc etc)

Any thoughts?
Thanks

Edit: didn't think I would get so many answers so quickly... thanks guys! keep going, i'm interested in having as many opinions as possible.
and no way i can buy a console, computer ftw

what other games apart from quakelive are you going to play? Because except for that, I don't see why you'd want to get a normal PC instead of a laptop (unless by movies, you mean something VERY special).

Wait a few months until the 6 core intels are out.
If they price them sensibly it should lower the prices for the existing 920's or you can buy one and have 6 cores. they use the same chipset as the i7 920. Around 20,000 in cinebench and close to 24k with a safe overclock (my estimate). Bit of a beast.

Either that or just spend about a 3rd of that budget and get yourself a nice Core 2 Q9950 setup and it'll probably do you well.

Baically now isn't a good time maybe 2 months, core 2 stuff will drop in value and so will the i7 920.

Well you'll need 6 gig of ram for the i7 series to get the best out of it. Normally ram isn't that important after the 3 gig mark, but like I said you HAVE to have 6 to get access tri channel mode.

Its not a huge dif, but seems stupid to skimp on such a minor component.

CPU and GPU are equally as important, BUT they are both only as good as the software.

If you want to buy a really good PC then like I said hang on until the 6 cores come out, assuming its priced at a sensible option, it should be possible for your budget. If not you'll get a nice i7 920 and plenty of change.

But if you want a good core 2 quad pc now (that will still do you well in games and multi media), go for the q9550.

The reason I'm suggesting a core2 setup and not an i5/amd setup is because the i7 uses the X58 chipset which is compatable with the upcoming 6 and no doubt 8 cores.

So if you buy ANYTHING but core 2, make sure its X58, that way in the future you can sell your i720 and add some cash and get a free upgrade, without having to replace motherboards.

If you buy a core 2, its not going to lose a lot of money.
In other words, you can sell it and still get a good price.

could you give an example of a q9950 setup for a 3rd of that budget? sounds interesting, was thinking about getting the usual i5 etc setup but as you said the time might not be the best.. I need a pc though.

you could save 60 on the GPU and get a hd4850 and save a further 50 on the CPU and get a E8400 (dual core) or even a Q6600 and not lose much performance. Minus 30 on the hard drive for a smaller one. That's already 150 off and I not really tried.

I was abit ambitious with the 3rd of the cost, but not to far off.

Also even if you used the cheaper components, you would probably struggle to tell the differecne as you can easily OC the q6600 to match q9550 performance or thereabouts and the Hd4850 is already handling crysis pretty well.

yeah it's not bad but it's on a dead socket (775) and intel won't be updating the socket with new cpus so he's better off investing in a socket that will last awhile so he'll be able to upgrade without having to change mobo and possibly memory sticks

It's a valid argument at this time considering intels roadmap regarding new sockets is empty, it's going to be 1156 and 1366 for awhile (32nm just came out) and that leaves room for an upgrade. This is not always the case but at the moment it certainly is.

selling parts which match the current socket will always give him better second hand value aswell - that's why everyone should be up to date with hardware launches, upgrading/selling is generally a matter of timing :)

Don't bother with more than 2gb of ram, as it's still more than enough for just about everything you could want to do. 4gb if you want to be future proof for a good 4 years, but any more than that is just pissing away money.

For a video card, save your money for now, and don't get more than the minimum of what you need. A geforce 8800 is less than $100 right now, and should be more than enough. When newer games come out, they'll need DX11 support, and you can get a nice DX11 card when they're out.

- wait 1, 2 months for the 32nm intels, then buy a 32nm quadcore around 200-300$. dont buy a 45nm CPU now, when 32nm is at the door
- p55 board
- 8gb ddr3
- hd5850 or hd5870, maybe even a fermi (nvidia) based solution if they turn out to be good for the price, or exceptionally fast/practical etc. just be careful, reference design video cards are loud nowadays, you might want to go for an aftermarket cooling solution like vapor-x
- for the soundcard just take an x-fi gamer, unless you have audiophile standards in which case i'd take an x-fi derivative like the auzentec x-fi's
- some hdd, or even a ssd for OS and hdd for data combination
- a decent power supply from a good brand, and some case, monitor, keyboard and mouse i guess

just dont buy what jamerio says, it basically will enhance your e-penis on certain sites (on ESR not really) but not really be a good system for your money

Hi I build computers for a living, look, I think we established you're a dumb German who I insulted and since then you keep trying to troll /rubbish me with one liners because you're bruised ego never quite got over it.

Its quite shocking this site has so many cluelessss admins like you.

And the fact that you took your name from a bottle of beer to try and hide the the fact you're probably another boring unoriginal nerd on the internet with nothing to offer is beyond me. German too.

Look at me, "I drink beer", "beer is cool". I get what you did there but its ultimately flawed.

You're an admin here right, I would be more than happy to have a live discussion on the topics most associated with this site, but without a search engine to consult, you would end up looking as stupid as I know you are.

funny thing is I never asked to be an admin, just thought I'd help when I was asked to.
So sorry if that hurt your feelings.

But interesting that you build computers for a living now, truly an innovative career, especially for someone who bought his first computer in 2004. 8 years later than clueless people like me :P

Btw, in any sales business it usually helps to listen to what the customer says, in this case he said that he used his previous laptop for five years and also that he doesn't care whether it is a laptop or a desktop.
This is a sign, that he might not intend to ever upgrade. Which in real business case should always trigger the question whether he wants a system with good upgradability or not.

Instead you assume we wants that because you would. Ergo, if customer contact is part of your job you really suck at it.

P.s: I find it very amusing that you toned you statements from "I own you at everything" to "I own you in topics on this site".

PP.S.: If those beer remarks of yours are serious they really make you look dumb. Everyone with half a brain can see how serious I am about that. i.e. neither tourist nor vedic ever chose to react to that ...

Last time I checked (in 2002) if available in most supermarkets, but it was quite expensive and judging by stored amounts other brands sold more. Heineken certainly being bigger. I'll have a fresh look in march.

But looking at it world-wide, from my experience I'd say Heineken, Becks and Carlsberg are the brands that are available in most places, like Jägermeister.

well, i think common knowledge is that most people who build pcs for a living are fucking not able to do it

now that could be because a) they have no brains or dont want to use them, thus gaining their entire "knowledge" from intel ads and selling you utterly overpriced crap b) they are actually smart people and for that reason will only sell you what's good for their pockets, meaning also utterly overpriced crap

alone to recommend an aftermarket CPU cooler/fan discredits you completely. i assume if you build PCs for a living you know nowadays' boxed fans. long story short: they cool good, they are silent, you wont ever need an aftermarket cooling solution if you dont plan on overclocking to 4ghz+
i ran an 65nm e2140 with a boxed fan at 2,8ghz completely stable without problems, and now run a 45nm e5200 at 3,7ghz stable, and that at 1,28v (only 10% over standard voltage at 2,5ghz). those fans just work very very well

also, what's the deal with recommending waiting for 6cores? name 1 application where the guy will benefit from anything more than a quadcore or even a dualcore

because its OS is so amazingly and you dont have to care if a pc program would stop working sooner or latter, you just have to enjoy it. trust me i bought a macbook and since i bought even playing high fashioned games the laptop just seems that nothing is happening like if you were typing on a notepad or something, just seems so good that is quite ridiculous :)

The first time I got to use a mac was at a friends house, it must have been around 1990, sure it was better than my 8086 but probably cost 50 times more.

Then my mother bought he first mac around 1998. I had to use for internet for about 9 months until I moved out. It crashed just as much as any Win95 pc.
She now has a macbook. It's ok, but I can't see that she has less problems with that OS than with the pc at her gallery. e.g. I have to set up her internet etc.

On the other hand my father, who only very reluctantly and therefore rarely uses pcs just bought a laptop with Windows 7 (he had never seen it before) and suprised me by calling only to ask the Wireless password at their place. Didn't need any other help in setting it up, even though before now that was always done either by me or service people at his company..

It probably depends a lot on the user, but I can't say that Macs have ever impressed me.
Unlike for example some linux setups which run well on very old machines.

So no, I will never pay twice the normal amount for some design stuff. I'll rather invest the money in a painting to hang on my wall.

thing is, my parent'Ss friends who persuaded my mother to buy one, an lawyer and a doctor, where saying the very same things people are saying today: better looking design, more stable, so easy to use.

Are you aware that there is a 64-bit version of Photoshop which is only available for windows? The older versions of the CS suite work (if at all?) horribly on new intel-based Macs which basically means you have to upgrade your software which in the end will quadruple the already expensive hardware.
CS3/4 versions just like the OSX for mac are complete bloatware because at this point they have to support both powerpc and intel hardware.

Long version:
Looks like people are either trolls or trying to scam you. You won't be needing a 6 core Gulftown for years and you will probably not be able to efficently use all cores for a long time. Software developers are still trying to catch up with 4 cores and they're doing terrible for applications and regarding games they're even worse. It's become a selling argument but doesn't reflect the actual performance in the vast majority of sofware you'd be running.

32nm cpu's are interesting as they run cool and handle overclocking marginally better but performancewise Intel's Clarksdale won't be offering more - although it would probably lower the prize of the i5 750 slightly <- might be worth waiting 2-3 months but there are alot of other factors that can change this. AMD's roadmap for 2010 doesn't offer any competition for Intel so they will most likely not lower the prizes alot.

While having a ~2-3 year futureproof PC in mind there's three options for you at the moment when it comes to cpus:

1) i7 920
2) i5 750
3) Phenom II X4 965 BE

- i7 920 has Hyperthreading with handles applications faster but has statistically shown that it's worse for games. 920 has triple channel support which also helps a bit in applications.
- i5 750 is just as good as the i7 920 for games but slightly slower in applications. Dual channel memory.
- 965 BE matches the i5 750 in games but is slower in applications. Dual channel memory controller.

If you're not going to be encoding videos or use photoshop heavily i wouldn't recommend buying the i7 920.

i5 750 is in the same price range as 965 BE so it's a given choice at the moment considering it's better. With a good cooler ( NOCTUA NH-U12P) you can easily get it up to 4GHz with air by slightly increasing the vcore a bit. If you're into that :)

Graphic card depends entirely and what you're aiming for. A Radeon HD5770 overclocks good and supports DX11 if you want to play some newer games. If you want more FPS you buy another 5770 and use it in Crossfire and you're getting about the same performance as a Radeon HD5870.

Memory - 4GB is generally enough for most users unless you're using a shitload of applications at the same time

Don't bother with a soundcard until you've tried the built in soundcard first. They're alright for most people.

Windows 7 64-bit is what you should be running.

The parts above +a HD5770 1GB should be about €800-900 euros depending on where you live. That leaves a little room for other stuff the future might bring or a HD5850/5870 instead of the HD5770 :)

What to get next:
-120hz screen (Samsung 2233RZ or Viewsonic VX2268WM8 or the new Full HD one coming out in ~march)
-Intel X25-M G2 80GB (system drive)

I've yet to see a person who upgrades CPUs frequently. Most run for 2-3 years with what they have bought from the get-go throw all this old crap away (maybe scrap the case, HDDs & burners) at the end and buy a complete new setup.

Sure if your CPU or motherboard dies, you go and replace and buy the most attractive option, but neither of those two died on me - ever.

And I've yet to see an idiot who buys used CPUs.

For example my Q6700 serves me just fine as it is, and it's in his 3rd year, going to replace it with a whole new machine somewhere in June/July - and I didn't have to upgrade anything in this box, all the games and apps still run more then good.

That said, I'd go with Enermax PSUs anyday over any other PSU brand out there. And if you want some non-stock cooling, I'd go with Thermalright.

That's really shitty advice you're advising on the i5 because when he wants to upgrade the CPU he will have to buy a new motherboard.

Secondly, the guy said he wants a pc for multi-media, so its not out of the question to think he meant programs like Video Editing/photoshop given any pc relesed over the last 6 years has been fine for traditional multi media.

Of which these threaded applications DO USE THE FULL POWER OF THE CPU. You're just talking about it from a gaming POV.

The only real COST difference between a i5 setup and a i7 (assuming entry level cpu) setup is the cost of the motherboard and CPU.

That cost is around 60 pound difference for CPU and a 30 pound difference for the motherboard.

SO.

Given the extra performance that the i7 would bring AND the fact that he would then have the motherboard that would allow him to drop in a big processor towards the end of the year, it makes perfect sense.

For the sake of £75-100 yiou would have to be an IDIOT to not go for the extra performance of the i7, plus the knowledge that in 8-12 months time you can sell that CPU, add a bit of cash to it and drop in a 6 core one with no extra hassle if you need it.

The upgrade potential and performace boost alone vs a little extra outlay make it worth doing.

when a cpu that significantly improves performance over this comes out, he will have to change his mobo anyway. he will have to change the whole computer most likely. the upgrade options are just marketing to scam more money from idiots(you).

People who upgrade constantly really are retards, it's rarely needed (Like if your job depends on then ok that's understandable).

Got to laugh at people who are always buying new CPUs and GFX cards, I've had my desktop for almost 5 years now and it's still doing a more than acceptable job with the latest games (Nor do I see that drastically changing too soon, so it might last me another few years yet).

personally i upgrade quite often and i'm getting alot of money from my old parts back since i tend to sell parts while they match the current socket just before a new socket gets out - that in turn gives good second hand value

generalising and saying that upgrading is a waste depends entirely on what needs you have and they're most likely not the same as yours

investing into dead sockets or buying the latest stuff is probably the worst way to spend your money

I specifically use my computers for threaded apps, but I understand you're used to hanging around with people who generally do nothign but play games, so its only natural you would base the entiry of your argument on playing computer games.

its probably why one of us made a few 100k out of games and the other didn't,

No, you pay a little more now for the i7 because you get extra performance now AND if your computing needs grow, you have the option of selling that CPU, adding a bit on and upgrading.

With the i5, you have much less upgrade potential, unless intel make their faster cpu's work on the p55 chipset.

THEY WON'T.

I'm not disputing the i5 is a bdchip.

I'm saying if someone is going to spend THAT MUCH MONEY on a new rig now, they might aswell spend a little bit more and not only get a faster CPU, but get the motherboard that will allow them to keep their system upto date for a long time.

sorry for bumping this thread but whats the difference between 32nm and 45nm cpu's? and did you mean that the 32nm will be cheaper or that when 32nm cpu's are released they will lower the 45nm's price? also I might do 3d work/animations in the future so is the i7 recommended for me? and about video cards, can the hd5xxx series keep up with the gtx 3xx series or do you think that dx11 games will demand better gpu's?

i have xbox and ps3, i dont play on them that much but i dont really need a big pc anymore. most games are coming out on the consoles now anyway. just want a laptop for internet really
been thinking about it for a while, now more so

I'm afraid someone did say something although he didn't have any clue and after his argument was confuted, he couldn't take the loss and instead tried to mask his nonsense as a "troll", so he is a winner instead of a loser ... hehe

This system will beat down an i7 coupled with a HD5770 or similar under every modern game.
You will be able to simply drop in a 6 core AM3 CPU as soon as they are available, and u won't need to any time soon. Do not bother with SLI / Xfire

you're talking about cpu vs cpu. it's obvious that i'm suggesting a better gpu is a more effective purchase than a better cpu where 3D games are concerned. You want proof that a top gpu will beat a mainstream gpu, in a game environment where the mainstream gpu has a better cpu behind it? It should've been obvious but here u go. It's interesting to note that even an athlon x2 5000 will give u almost the same fps as an i7 under crysis warhead where the same gpu is being used :) and the other games show an fps discrepancy that in no way is comparable to the price difference between the two platforms for gaming. Here's more. Pay especially close attention to the negligible fps increases on the q6600 going from stock 2.4ghz to OC 3.2ghz running under the same GPU. In addition the AM3 socket will accomodate 6 core cpu's as and when they arrive; it's a no brainer.

Picking a game where it's been proven over and over again that the cpu is somewhat neglectable might not be the best choice.

Why are you even talking about the q6600 oc? Kentfield uses a quite different architecture compared to Lynnfield and therefor it's IPC is not similar and vastly improved.

You won't be needing more cores as long as the games are not engineered to effeciently use them - which they won't in a long awhile. Additionally 1156 is most likely going to support 32nm quadcore clarkdales in the future and seeing as they are in the same price range as AM3 (or cheaper) it's a a given choice. 965 is being outperformed by Intels mainstream cpu in applications and on par in games.

"Picking a game where it's been proven over and over again that the cpu is somewhat neglectable might not be the best choice" feel free to dismiss almost all other games too since most modern titles are more gpu heavy than cpu heavy. Just look through the links i've given u please.
Disregarding the whole Core 2 line up of cpu's? Even if u want to do that, which I think serves little purpose, since it doesn't help your stance at all, as I've given u the link on i7 vs amd. Now it's nice of u to keep going on about IPC, but price/performance ratio is monumentally more important when his budget is 1000e.
Speculating that in the future Intel will be cheaper (or the same) than AM3? You're either being optimistic, horribly misinformed or disingenuous in order to "win". Show me some graphs of an i7 coupled with a mainstream gpu, owning a phenom II coupled with a top gpu in a game environment. u won't find it, because it can't happen unless u find a title that's way more demanding of the cpu than the gpu. Haven't seen one of those engines for 10 years

Another conclusion: The Core i7 will do better with newer games than older ones. That's a good trend; while Nehalem is no slouch on older games, it's the new generation of multithreaded titles that will benefit from Core i7's enhancements the most.

"why do you think the Quad will be on par with the i7s"
because that's exactly what the graphs are showing. As for the future, I predict (lol, like it even needs prediction) that gpu's will continue to be the bottleneck, especially when hw physics becomes ubiquitous which is already happening

You're turning this into your own personal GPU-test performance thread.

You might be amazed that some people actually do something else than play games.

Really, think of it: he's going to play quake and watch movies so HT is out of the question. That leave us with 965 or i5 750 which have the same prize.

He's going to get the same gaming performance from both systems but the intel i5 750 will be marginally faster in applications.

Your argument is that he can later upgrade to a 6 core CPU on the same mobo which he never will be able to use efficiently for watching movies and quake anyway?

Instead he can pick the i5 750 for the same prize, get the same gaming performance, run applications faster and eventually invest into a 32nm quadcore which runs cooler and has a lower thermal design power value. 1156 is here to stay for awhile and considering his needs it's a good pick.

Unless, of course, you can't overclock one slight bit and just feel the need to support AMD and even then i5 offers the turbo function and that's where to IPC comes in. "IPC IPC IPC yo"

phenomII 3ghz is 110e, i5 750 is 160e, plus another 20e for intel motherboard. this might take gotham over his budget, and it's needless since his needs are: "3/ the computer is aimed at a) playing video games (especially quakelive) b) multimedia stuff (music, movies, internet, etc etc)". dunno if it's worth posting this much :/

Sorry I've been busy working and I just haven't had the time to reply. The smiley was just a placeholder and still is.

He makes a rant about picking a mobo which will eventually support 6 cores cpu's while stating that price/performance is an important factor for a budget of €1000. The day games are actually written to support 6 cores there's a reason to pick it but the guy is going to watch movies and play quake - that's it. 965 and i5 750 are in the same prize and the i5 750 outperforms the 965 so it's a given choice.

The guy asking for advice is not going to be encoding h/x264 or compress files heavily thus he won't be needing 6 cores - and by the time AM3 supports 6 cores and they're down to a decent prize Intel will already have 32nm quadcores on 1156 - which is everything he'll need for the next years.

Bringing up crysis is the first mistake people when posting a benchmark trying to prove something. It's originally a GPU-test and nothing more. Also crysis has been known to differ alot in tests compared to other games and there's a whole bunch of tests showing the same thing. If he'd hang out on xtremesystems or any other hardware forum he'd know about it.

"Why are you even talking about the q6600 oc?" because it clearly demonstrates that a better cpu doesn't usually translate to an appreciable increase in fps; not nearly as much as changing the gpu. i hate to point out the obvious, but the obvious is escaping u right now :(